Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds substantial context beyond the read-only/open-world annotations: partial failures are surfaced via platforms_missing and still charged, bad input is free, no-match is not charged, and the exact price plus x402 payment mechanism in _meta is given. These are the operational facts an agent needs before spending money.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the capability, then return shape, then failure/charging rules and price — every element earns its place. The single dense paragraph is slightly run-on, but nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (text, author, likes, replies, reposts, views, time, URL in a shared schema) plus pagination and partial-failure semantics. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so q, cursor, and platforms are already fully documented. The description reinforces that cursor continues every platform and platforms takes 1-3 values, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('one keyword search on Reddit and TikTok, plus X ... run in parallel') and names the exact scope (1-3 platforms, shared schema). This clearly separates it from single-platform siblings like x_search, reddit_search, and tiktok_search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains the multi-platform batching behavior and that 1-3 platforms may be chosen, which implies when to use it over single-platform tools, and cursor behavior is described. It stops short of explicitly naming the single-platform alternatives or stating 'use those if you only need one source'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.